regards the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea by the International Court at The Hague. They defined the general lines on the basis of which the forthcoming meetings of the representatives of the two Govemments would take place. In that connection they decided to bring fonvard the date of the meeting of experts concerning the question of the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea and that of the experts on the question of air space." 98. In presenting the Communiqué as constituting a definitive agreement between the Prime Ministers to submit the present dispute to the Court, the Greek Govemment places particular emphasis on the word "décidé" and the words "doivent être résolus" in the original-French- text of the second paragraph. These words, it says, are words of "decision" and of "obligation" indicative of a mutual commitment on the part of the Prime Ministers torefer the dispute to the Court. Specifically, it claims that the "agreement" embodied in the Communiqué "is more than an undertaking to negotiate" and directly "confers jurisdiction on the Court" (Memorial, Part 2, Section III, Heading A). It likewise claims that the Communiqué "comrnits the parties to conclude any implementing agreement needed for the performance of the obligation" (ibid, Heading B), and that the refusal by one party to conclude such an agreement "permits the other party to seise the Court unilaterally" (ibid, Heading C). In its view, moreover, no implementing agreement is required by the Communiqué which, it says, "enables the parties to resort to the Court by Application no less than by special agreement" (ibid., Heading D). Finally, if it is considered that "a complementary agreement is a legal prerequisite for seisin of the Court", it maintains that "the two parties are under obligation to negotiate in good faith the conclusion of such an agreement" (ibid., Heading E). 99. The Turkish Government, in the observations transmitted to the Court on 25 August 1976, not only denies that the Communiqué constitutes "an agreement under international law" (para. 15)but also maintains that in any event the two Governments cannot be said to have thereby "jointly and severally accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in the present matter" when they have never agreed on the scope of the "matter" to be subrnitted to the Court (para. 14). Examination of the text, it maintains, shows that the intention was quite different, and that the Communiqué was "far from amounting to agreement by one State to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court upon the unilateral application of the other State" (ibid.). According to the Government of Turkey: ". . . it is clear that there was no commitment to submit to the Court without a special agreement because the following paragraph said in this connection that the two Prime Ministers had decided to accelerate the meeting of the experts concerning the question of the continental shelf of the Aegean Sea" (ibid.).